When asked Wednesday at his news conference why there is nothing in the deal about the American hostages being held by Iran, President Obama explained that this is a separate issue, not part of nuclear talks.

Are conventional weapons not a separate issue? After all, conventional, by definition, means non-nuclear. Why are we giving up the embargoes?

Because Iran, joined by Russia — our “reset” partner — sprung the demand at the last minute, calculating that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were so desperate for a deal that they would cave. They did. And have convinced themselves that they scored a victory by delaying the lifting by five to eight years. (Ostensibly. The language is murky. The interval could be considerably shorter.)

There is the second pregnant question – if the hostages are a separate issue, so are conventional weapons, aren’t they?

But then, you find out that both Obama and Kerry fell victim to a negotiating trick that only a rookie would cave too. The tactic is well known and has been associated with Cold War USSR negotiations for decades. They teach it in Negotiating 101. This is what they always do and you have to know your opponent well enough to expect it and have a strategy to counteract it. As usual, Obama and Kerry were unprepared.

What Obama said about the hostages, if he really believes it, was the perfect answer to the Iranians when they sprang this on them.

But desperation is what the Iranians and Russians were counting on. Anything to make the deal. They knew how desperate these two were. So they held one of the most outrageous demands until the seeming end of the negotiations. When the end was tantalizingly in sight and time was running out. The Iranians gauged well the desperate desire for an agreement that the Obama/Kerry cabal had.

And so they used it against them to make a mockery of the deal.

Stunning. The incompetence and ineptness aren’t what stun anyone – that’s been demonstrated so many times in the past 6 years it’s the new normal for this administration. What’s stunning is what they gave away when they didn’t have too.

But then, this is the Obama administration and the Secretary of State is John Kerry.

As far as legacy, what politician doesn’t want one? For Obama, a nominal nuclear deal may make him feel as if he’s earned the Nobel Prize once furnished him as election swag. John Kerry’s own efforts to earn a Nobel by brokering Middle East peace became another footnote in the story of Palestinian obstinacy. He too had something to prove.

From the administration’s standpoint, the deal was a grand slam. If it left Iran as an official nuclear power on the perpetual verge of a breakout, well, that was always the bargaining chip to get everything else. And with the United States having shown extraordinary cooperation and forgiveness, the thinking goes, even a nuclear Iran will become a less bellicose and more collegial member of the community of nations. What good the deal has already done, the administration believes, will continue to pay dividends. As is his wont, Obama is now declaring as much. But by the time his vision is upended by facts, he’ll be out of office, and we won’t have the luxury of fighting reality with abstractions.

Obama is desperate for a positive legacy. Obamacare is the White Elephant in the room. It will, one day, be declared the disaster it really is (but that will require the time for it to really demonstrate how horrendous a piece of legislation it truly was … it’s getting there). The man who wanted to make “government cool” has managed to make it not only cool but the butt of jokes. Ratings for all branches of government have plunged on his watch. Race relations and corruption are worse on his watch. And his foreign policy has been clueless. It has also be reactive and rudderless. Just as respect for government has plunged, so has respect for the US (even Jimmy Carter admits this).

So yeah, two guys who have accomplished little or nothing in their lives are wanting to leave a mark.

Too bad it will more likely resemble a skid mark in a pair underwear, when all is said and done, than any mark of accomplishment. But then, we’ve always known the left was more into style than substance. And Obama and Kerry have built in some blame shifting room in the Iran agreement. If, 8 or 10 years out, Iran has the bomb, it will be the fault of whoever is in the White House (and GW Bush, if they can swing it), not them.

Every year brings a new batch of data regarding the progression and likely effects of climate change, and the results are almost always worse than previous models had predicted. In fact, they’re frankly terrifying: rapid and accelerating deterioration of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets that will yield massive sea-level rise and submerge coastal cities; paralyzing drought on continental interiors that will lead to Dust Bowl–style famine; and incredibly powerful floods and storms that happen more frequently — five times as often now, in fact, as in the 1970s.

Most of the worst predicted outcomes will occur down the road. In the meantime, though, the people making these predictions — climate scientists — are dealing with a heavy psychological toll, as a piece in Esquire by John H. Richardson points out. They are living, as Richardson puts it, a “surreal existence.”

One psychologist who works with climate scientists told Richardson they suffer from “pre-traumatic stress,” the overwhelming sense of anger, panic, and “obsessive-intrusive thoughts” that results when your work every day is to chart a planetary future that looks increasingly apocalyptic. Some climatologists merely report depression and feelings of hopelessness. Others, resigned to our shared fate, have written what amount to survival guides for a sort of Mad Max dystopian future where civilization has broken down under the pressures of resource scarcity and habitat erosion.

The alarmists are dealing with psychological problems.

You have to wonder if it because the “big lie” they’ve been pushing for so many years is collapsing like a wet cardboard box? Or it’s just the wages of “true belief”, regardless of what other scientists are saying (with “97%” accuracy).

When Army Sgt. Patrick Hart decided a decade ago that he would not serve in the war in Iraq, he expected to follow the same path as thousands of American war resisters during the Vietnam era and take refuge across the border.

But after five years of wrangling with the Canadian immigration system, he came back to the U.S. — and ended up in a military prison.

Of course, Hart swore this oath at his enlistment and any re-enlistment he did:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

When your service is contingent upon that voluntary agreement, via oath, to fight all enemies “both foreign and domestic” and “to obey the orders” of those placed above you in your chain of command, you don’t get to decide who the enemies are or what orders you’ll obey. And if you do make a decision not to fight a particular enemy or obey a particular order, then you must also be willing to stand up and suffer the consequences of your principled stand. Not run and hide.

Yes, there are illegal orders and it is your duty to disobey them – and then stand your ground and ride out the aftermath. Same with refusing to fight. Do so and stand there and take the consequences.

But when you voluntarily take an oath such as the armed forces requires, you better think seriously about what those words mean before you utter them and then sign your name to them. As mentioned, this is a volunteer military. No one makes you go in, no one makes you swear the oath, etc. And nowhere does the oath allow caveats on who or what you may or may not fight.

So, knowing that, I have little to no sympathy for prisoner Hart. He got what he deserved and I’m quite happy to see that Canada gets the difference. Apparently some other folks don’t:

Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau has not committed to letting the resisters stay, but many are buoyed by his family history. It was his father, Pierre Trudeau, who while prime minister during the Vietnam War said Canada should be “a refuge from militarism.”

“Why not do it again? It’s only a couple of dozen people,” said Michelle Robidoux, spokeswoman for the War Resisters Support Campaign in Toronto, which has been lobbying members of Parliament.

The difference between the military of the Vietnam era and the military of today is summed up quickly: draft army vs. volunteer army. You can actually have some sympathy for those who fled to Canada during that era instead of doing something they were “press ganged” into doing or didn’t believe in. For most, no oath was involved and they hadn’t volunteered for anything.

“Why not do it again?” Because these people deserting now are deserting a voluntary commitment that suddenly became inconvenient for them. They voluntarily swore an oath and now, instead of fulfilling it, they’re cutting and running. That’s why you don’t do it “again”?

Did you know that Harry Reid and Donald Trump agree on the immigration issue? Or they certainly sound like they do. Of course Reid will likely tell you that his position has “evolved” over the years – what is commonly called a “flip flop” in politics. Like Hillary Clinton’s present position on gay marriage (and any number of other issues). They’re positions of political convenience, not principal.

Reid authored the Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993 to remove asylum seekers, end birthright citizenship, expand deportations, and exclude legal immigrants from public assistance. The bill also included amendments that closed loopholes dealing with criminal aliens and mandated more cooperation between local and federal law enforcement, the Conservative Review reported on Tuesday.

“Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools and social programs. The Immigration and Naturalization Service needs the ability to step up enforcement,” Reid said in a statement.

“Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care and other benefits often without paying any taxes,” Reid continued. “Safeguards like welfare and free medical care are in place to boost Americans in need of short-term assistance. These programs were not meant to entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world.”

Apparently 1993 marks the date when Mr. Reid allegedly held the interests of American citizens to the forefront recognizing the drain unchecked and illegal immigration has on the nation’s budget, health and resources.

Now, not so much.

Had a Republican said all of what Mr. Reid said back then, he’d be branded a “racist”.